Lord Garden: My Lords, from these Benches I add our condolences for the three losses that the British forces have had since we last dealt with the subject of Iraq, and also to the families of others, civilian and military, who have died.
	I am most grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for relaying the Statement on Iraq roulement. It is perhaps unfortunate that we have to discuss Iraq each time on the back of a Statement. I trust, given that a major change will happen once the joint committee has produced its recommendations, that we will have a full debate at that time rather than just a Statement.
	The Government's approach on Iraq compares unfavourably with the approach on Afghanistan, which has been much more open. We have had welcome consultation, and we have looked at how the enlarged task in Afghanistan is to be carried out. Three years on, with over 100 British troops dead, tens of thousands of Iraqis killed and much of the remainder of the population living in fear of death, torture or both, we need a strategic approach in Iraq, just as we are developing one in Afghanistan.
	In any post-conflict situation the military can only enable the development of the political and economic structures. Military action is not an end in itself. We have called repeatedly for comparative data on how the reconstruction effort is going, and, given the noble Baroness's other ministerial responsibilities, could she tell us today what the electricity availability in the British sector is, and what are the figures for safe water, sewage systems and unemployment—all the key economic indicators that tell us whether we are making progress?
	On the political side, we are all aware of the continuing difficulties of forming a national government. How does that affect the British area of responsibility? Do we have confidence in the local political governance? If not, why not, and what are we doing about it? The reduction in force levels by 10 per cent set out in today's Statement is a significant reduction. Back in November, the Secretary of State said in another place:
	"We have made it plain that we will hand over to the Iraqi security forces when they are capable of defending the democracy that they are building against the terrorists. In order to make that assessment, a committee has been established"—[Official Report, Commons, 14/11/05; col. 675]—
	which would assess the situation. We there is no Iraqi Government and no committee assessing it, but we are reducing forces by 10hear in this Statement that that committee has not started work yet. We have a problem: per cent. What is the strategy?
	The security problem comes from multiple sources: insurgents, extremists, militias, armed criminals and inter-ethnic conflict. It would be a problem for any western police or military force at home to deal with in their own country. We saw the problems we had in Northern Ireland, a much less hostile environment, and how long it took us to win the confidence and support of all elements of the local population. How much more difficult it will be for the embryonic Iraqi security forces to achieve it. I too noticed, as did the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, the missing part about the 59 units in the Iraqi forces that were assessed as being up to speed. The category in the original draft encompassed those that could do it on their own, but also those that needed some assistance—Level 1 and Level 2, in Department of Defense-speak.
	The critical question for us, which is very difficult for any of your Lordships to answer, is whether the occupying forces at the moment are more of a help than hindrance. It is a not a judgment that we make on party political grounds; nor, I suggest, should it be one that we make consequential on the United States mid-term election timetable. Yet without open, honest, comparable, consistent data, we just cannot make that objective assessment. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches have argued for the past three years that a strategy is needed. Ten per cent troop reductions can be thought of as a tactical matter but we do not know whether it is a wise move in military terms—whether it puts the troops who remain at greater risk. What we do know is that it cannot be consistent with the view that the Iraqi Government would be involved because we do not have the new Iraqi Government. So we on the Liberal Democrat Benches can do no more than note that the United Kingdom Government believe that it is a sensible move.
	Opinion polls in Iraq suggest that we are not winning the battle for hearts and minds. That is not surprising when another opinion poll indicated that 85 per cent of American forces in Iraq believe that they are there to retaliate for 9/11. If that is really what they believe, it is scarcely surprising that we are losing the battle for hearts and minds.
	We support the congratulations in the Statement to our Armed Forces on all they do, but we also have to consider reports on prisoner abuse from organisations such as Amnesty International, which states:
	"The record of these forces, including US forces and their United Kingdom (UK) allies, is an unpalatable one".
	There are balances to be struck.
	I have some specific military questions, on which I am sure the noble Baroness will want to write. It is not clear from the Statement whether the number of reservists is up or down—it just says that it changes. The reservists are finding life in Iraq very difficult at the moment. The number of helicopters is being reduced. Two Sea Kings are being knocked off the number. Yet when you compare the six Chinooks that go to Afghanistan with the slightly rag-bag collection of helicopters in Iraq, it seems odd that a bigger force should have a smaller lift in a more hostile environment. I need to be reassured that reducing it yet further in Iraq is sensible.
	There is no mention of the problems that we have discussed on a number of occasions of air transport and getting the forces out in time. What about medical support? How will that be affected given that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body has highlighted that we are in a critical state, especially as regards nurses in the military? Will the Royal Military Police be reinforced so that investigations can be timely to avoid morale losses? There are many questions that we do not have sufficient time to cover today. However, we listened to the Statement with interest and thank the noble Baroness for delivering it. We wish our troops every success.